ClumsyMonkey.net

Chanandler Bong wrote:

naseoj wrote:well then you probably shouldn't be posting here because you don't know the specifics of the attacks like people who have watched the movie do. It's a lot more than just a plane hitting the building. And the official government reasoning for the collapse of the WTC was not that the plane exploded, but the jet fuel ignited, set the building on fire, melted the steel, and caushed the building to collapse and pancake each floor below it.

Oh I know all about why the towers collapsed and you do not need to explain it to me. From the moment I saw the first tower burning, I knew it wasn't going to be around anymore. But what I have a hard time believing that this cannot be anything else but an act of terrorism.

the twin towers were the first buildings in history to fully collapse due to a fire (or so we are meant to believe).

Chanandler Bong wrote:

naseoj wrote:well then you probably shouldn't be posting here because you don't know the specifics of the attacks like people who have watched the movie do. It's a lot more than just a plane hitting the building. And the official government reasoning for the collapse of the WTC was not that the plane exploded, but the jet fuel ignited, set the building on fire, melted the steel, and caushed the building to collapse and pancake each floor below it.

Oh I know all about why the towers collapsed and you do not need to explain it to me. From the moment I saw the first tower burning, I knew it wasn't going to be around anymore. But what I have a hard time believing that this cannot be anything else but an act of terrorism.

Perhaps you have a hard time believe that because you haven't seen the movie that shows evidence to the contrary?

Wow. These guys did one hell of a job to disprove everything we've been told. Kudos to them.

I don't get it. Aren't you guys, some of you being american citizens, outraged that your government may have lied to you about this whole thing and deliberately killed thousands of people? It's not interesting, it's appalling!

naseoj wrote:

Chanandler Bong wrote:

naseoj wrote:well then you probably shouldn't be posting here because you don't know the specifics of the attacks like people who have watched the movie do. It's a lot more than just a plane hitting the building. And the official government reasoning for the collapse of the WTC was not that the plane exploded, but the jet fuel ignited, set the building on fire, melted the steel, and caushed the building to collapse and pancake each floor below it.

Oh I know all about why the towers collapsed and you do not need to explain it to me. From the moment I saw the first tower burning, I knew it wasn't going to be around anymore. But what I have a hard time believing that this cannot be anything else but an act of terrorism.

the twin towers were the first buildings in history to fully collapse due to a fire (or so we are meant to believe).

yeah, that's the key. if they actually collapsed due to fire, they would be the first 3 buildings to do so. EVER. (one of the others ... 7, I think, was supposed to have also collapsed due to fire).

Axtech wrote:7, I think, was supposed to have also collapsed due to fire.

thats the most rediculous thing of all. WTC 7 wasnt even hit by a plane. Collapsed from small fires? Bullplop. Larry Silverstein, the owner, even ADMITTED in an interview that they "pulled" (meaning deliberately demolished) WTC 7. I dont think that was in Loose Change but i saw it in another video i came across.

For me personally this is really tough. This past year I took a course on Critical Security Studies which is basically a course on human security. We had a guy in our class who did a presentation on the holes in 9/11 and it was so hard to take him seriously, because from an academic standpoint conspiracy isn't looked upon very highly. So I come into it with a bit of skepticism to start.

With that in mind I think it's interesting how the pieces come together. There were some pretty big steps taken by the people who made the movie where some inferences were kind of missing a link. One in particular was the idea that explosions occured at the bottom of the towers as well as the top, which suggests to me that someone detonated one of the lower ones at the same time as the plane hit the building. Perhaps I misunderstood but they mention the 9 second gap between bangs, and I don't know if the idea that someone was sitting around waiting for it to happen is believeable. Sure it's possible, but it seems a little farfetched, especially to know in foresight what tower would be hit, and where that would hit specifically.

I also think that some of the eye witness accounts may have been skewed by what types of questions the reporters asked, as well as the magnitude of the event. If you just witnessed something slame into something else at an amazing speed, I think it would shock your system and I doubt most people would be able to think coherently under that much stress. But I could be wrong of course.

Again though there are some big holes in 9/11 that really makes a conspiracy plausible. I mean there is clearly bias in the movie. It's a movie that is trying to prove something. Of course they're going to leave out arguments that debunk their theories and only approach the ones that they know they can counter. I think it's definitely appropriate to question the events, but it is also as appropriate to question the movie as well.

There's already been some 9/11 debate in the last month or so. It seems like these conspiracies are really starting to take off cause I'm hearing a lot about them.

A question I have for you guys is, would you rather the events of 9/11 to have been an act by the American government? or by Terrorists? Keep in mind that if this was an event to spark an agenda, it is pretty much a one time thing at least for the forseeable future. The ball is already rolling. However, if it's terrorism, this can happen again and again without any real warnings and to me that seems a lot scarier. What do you guys think?

Chanandler Bong wrote:

naseoj wrote:well then you probably shouldn't be posting here because you don't know the specifics of the attacks like people who have watched the movie do. It's a lot more than just a plane hitting the building. And the official government reasoning for the collapse of the WTC was not that the plane exploded, but the jet fuel ignited, set the building on fire, melted the steel, and caushed the building to collapse and pancake each floor below it.

Oh I know all about why the towers collapsed and you do not need to explain it to me. From the moment I saw the first tower burning, I knew it wasn't going to be around anymore. But what I have a hard time believing that this cannot be anything else but an act of terrorism.

Dude, a bomber accidentally flew into the empire state building, and that's just fine still. These buildings are DESIGNED to withstand these things, in fact the WTC was specifically designed to keep it from collapsing when HIT BY A PLANE. The cores of skyscrapers are reinforced with treated steel that kerosene (ie jet fuel) could not possibly burn hotly enough to melt. It's not a fucking rickety piece of wood. It's an incredibly complicated and throughly-architectured steel masterpiece with some concrete on the outside.

yeah, that's the key. if they actually collapsed due to fire, they would be the first 3 buildings to do so. EVER. (one of the others ... 7, I think, was supposed to have also collapsed due to fire).

I havent watched this movie yet but will be shortly. Before I do i just wanted to comment on the comments about the validity of a fire being capable of bringing down the WTC. It is my understanding that the impact of the fuel full planes caused explosions that were too much for the structural integrity of the buildings. The fact that the planes were carrying so much fuel only added to the outcome. It was not fire alone that brought down the towers but the impact and subsequent explosions.

Now i will go watch and see how my opinion changes

Please read above. Jet fuel cannot possibly burn hotly enough to do that. The video also gives several examples, besides the one about the bomber CFIT-ing the empire state, of skyscrapers that burned for several hours, on several floors, and were just fine.

P.S.

No building ever collapses straight down like that of its own volition. Especially not the tallest damn buildings in existence. It takes months of planning by highly trained demolition crews to place explosives in just the right way and time their explosion in just the right order to make something like that happen. That's really just an unarguable fact.

So who would you guys say is in the know? Would someone like Bush know that this was an inside job? or do you think this was done by people who are even above him?

I mean ya, the New American Century published that report, but all they said was that something massive would have to happen for such changes to occur instantly. It doesn't mean they planned it. They just got what they were looking for an could purely be coincidental. I know there are links with the Bush's and some of the people who dealt with the WTC but i don't know if there are true links there. I think they're reaching.

I don't think any of us is in a position to give more than a speculative answer to that question. What the evidence basically indicates is that the events that truly occurred were seriously at odds with what was reported by the government and the media. Anything beyond that simple statement ventures, as I said, into pure speculation. Draw conclusions as you see fit, I suppose, is the result.

A bomber flew into the Empire state building? When?

no, there was fire in the Empire State Building (which burned for longer), but it did not collapse. the point of that example (along with the many others provided in the movie) is that no building has EVER collapsed as a result of fire.

The official cause of the collapse of 3 of the WTC buildings, according to the US government? Fire.

"On July 28th, 1945, a B-52 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. 14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But the building stands intact to this day."

That's in the movie, along with footage, at about 32 minutes.

You think 60 years on the skyscraper technology hasn't in fact IMPROVED since then?

oh right, I was thinking of something else.

after a search, it was July 28, 1945

I want to steer the discussion towards the pentagon for a sec...

I found this picture. It shows the five frames from the video footage that was released. These were the only pictures of the incident that the FBI ended up releasing. Notice how they don't even show what hit the pentagon...

naseoj wrote:I want to steer the discussion towards the pentagon for a sec...

I found this picture. It shows the five frames from the video footage that was released. These were the only pictures of the incident that the FBI ended up releasing. Notice how they don't even show what hit the pentagon...

What you've shown....is rough proof why I firmly believe a commercial airliner did not hit the Pentagon.

I hate the government.....and I hate the "Oil Man" even more.

I've been doing research on 9/11 all day now. I even contacted one of the three guys who made loose change via email and asked him a bunch of questions on the issue that i didn't understand. Call me crazy but I no longer believe it was a terrorist attack. Or at least, there is some kind of major government cover-up. I think we can all agree on that.

I found another good website: www.letsroll911.org

It shows a lot of evidence and best of all, pictures. On the home page, if you scroll down a bit to where the pictures of the planes are, click on one of those pics and it takes you to a page showing a crapload of pics observing the type of plane that could have hit the towers, the possible missle launcher attached to the bottom, and more